Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Is CoP really foolproof?

  1. #1
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    205

    Is CoP really foolproof?

    Not sure I understand it 100%, but is there any leeway for favoritism? For instance, if a skill is worth a certain number of points, is there an up/down spread the judges can score it or is it an absolute x number of points?

  2. #2
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    Plenty of leeway.

    First, the technical specialist (caller) can decide, pretty much without challenge, whether a triple jump should be downgraded to a double (because of a slight underrotation, for example), whether a spin should get a level 3 or a level 4 (did the skater hold each change of position long enough), etc. Although there are guidelines about this, there is still a lot of responsibility on the caller and his assistant.

    Secondly, the judges add (or subtract) the Grade of Execution (GOE). This is somewhat subjective, too. If you look at the judges scoresheets (protocols) after an event, you will see that one judge might give a +2 and a different judge a -1 for the same element.

    For instance, a triple Lutz is worth 6.0 "base points," but the judges can add or subtract up to 3 extra points, so the range is 3 to 9 points for that element.

    Finally, the Program Component Scores (like the "presentation score" in the old system, worth about half of the total score) seems, in practice, to be completely up to the whim of the judges. Although there are five different categories, each with its own criteria for what constitutes excellence, in many contests it seem like the judges just give out blanket high scores to the skaters whose performances they liked the best, without paying too much attention to the actual rules.

    MM
    Last edited by Mathman; 01-28-2006 at 03:27 PM.

  3. #3
    Keeper of La Khok's Tutus Doggygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    2,802

    Hi all!

    Mathman, Just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with your assessment of things. Figure Skating will always have a great degree of subjectivity inherent in the sport, so IMO, there is no way to get around that.

    I personally like that fact that at least some aspects are coming under a more technically objective (well, I guess that's a matter of opinion) scrutiny. Even with that, I think judges will always have style preferences, etc. I think a certain amount of that is just the nature of things.

    DG

  4. #4
    Forum translator Ptichka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    4,430
    For me, the technical marks seem reasonable enough. Far from perfect, but a HUGE improvement over the 6.0 system. The components mark, though, are a different story. Most judges tend to give the same marks for all 5 components (with a slight exception for Skating Skills which seems more correlated with the elements marks), which is often pure nonsense.

  5. #5
    Skating Freak Barbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,489
    Foolproof? Not at all...it's called PCS scores....

  6. #6
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman
    Plenty of leeway.

    First, the technical specialist (caller) can decide, pretty much without challenge, whether a triple jump should be downgraded to a double (because of a slight underrotation, for example), whether a spin should get a level 3 or a level 4 (did the skater hold each change of position long enough), etc. Although there are guidelines about this, there is still a lot of responsibility on the caller and his assistant.

    Secondly, the judges add (or subtract) the Grade of Execution (GOE). This is somewhat subjective, too. If you look at the judges scoresheets (protocols) after an event, you will see that one judge might give a +2 and a different judge a -1 for the same element.

    For instance, a triple Lutz is worth 6.0 "base points," but the judges can add or subtract up to 3 extra points, so the range is 3 to 9 points for that element.

    Finally, the Program Component Scores (like the "presentation score" in the old system, worth about half of the total score) seems, in practice, to be completely up to the whim of the judges. Although there are five different categories, each with its own criteria for what constitutes excellence, in many contests it seem like the judges just give out blanket high scores to the skaters whose performances they liked the best, without paying too much attention to the actual rules.

    MM
    Hey MM. Excellent post on this. I always put you in the category that of full faith and trust in the judges. I suppose if the consensus comes up with a certain winner, it could dispel the incompetent ones - maybe, but for me that depends on the favorites of all the individual judges. Cultural bias does exist.

    And MM, your take on the PCS scores are right on.

    Joe

  7. #7
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    205
    Thanks all! Just wanted to find out for sure before I start speculating on the Olympics.

  8. #8
    Custom Title heyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,201
    Also, don't forget the random draw. It's possible for a skater/team to lose higher scores. Just happened at Europeans in one phase of the Ice Dance competitions. N/K would have been in 1st place except the 3 highest scores were not part of the draw.

  9. #9
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,253
    To me, it's kind of a catch 22. We say that we want more objectivity in the judging, to make figure skating more like a "real sport," but do we?

    Bobsledding is a real sport. You jump in your sled and you make it down to the bottom of the run in 42.39 seconds.

    Then the next team jumps in their sled and tries to make it down to the bottom of the run in 42.38 seconds. Yay!

    Unless the stopwatch malfunctions, there is no controversy, no second guessing the judges, no wuz-robbing.

    To me, its more fun to say, yes, the second team got a 42.38, but all the pusher did was crossovers. Our guy did two three-turns and a Choctaw.

    MM

  10. #10
    Gadfly and Bon Vivant Mafke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Justafan
    Not sure I understand it 100%, but is there any leeway for favoritism? For instance, if a skill is worth a certain number of points, is there an up/down spread the judges can score it or is it an absolute x number of points?
    I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the new judging system. The purpose has almost nothing to do with ensuring equitable results, but rather to make sure that misdeeds by individual judges cannot be discovered by the press.
    Since this is the ISU and Speedy we're talking about, it's not foolproof, witness the numerous computer malfunctions and adjusted results.

  11. #11
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    And by all means read Bianchetti's take on this subject in another current thread.

    Joe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •